Gemara here in שבת דף ד עמוד א, going into דף ד עמוד ב, we have at least one of the ways the Gemara explains a certain machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim is whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. This is the case where the Mishnah says if someone threw something מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד ורשות הרבים באמצע, he threw something from רשות היחיד and it landed in another רשות היחיד, and the רשות הרבים was in between, רבי עקיבא מחייב וחכמים פוטרין. Rabbi Akiva says you're chayav, the Chachamim says you're patur, and the Gemara explains one of the ways is Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה, and the Rabbanan say לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה. What does that mean? Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that when something comes into the airspace, it's as if it stopped there, and therefore if you throw something from רשות היחיד and it goes through the רשות הרבים, and it didn't stop there, and it continued to the another רשות היחיד, but because it came into the airspace of the רשות הרבים, כמי שהונחה, it's as if it stops. So לפי זה, you made an עקירה in the רשות היחיד, you threw it from the רשות היחיד and it came into the airspace of the רשות הרבים, it's כאילו it stopped. So לפועל, you made an עקירה in רשות היחיד and an הנחה in רשות הרבים, so you're chayav. The Chachamim say you're patur, they say לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא. No, if it comes in the airspace is not enough for it to be considered like it stopped, וממילא you did not make an עקירה in רשות היחיד and an הנחה in רשות הרבים because it didn't stop in רשות הרבים. Where did it actually stop? In the second רשות היחיד. So it's from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, so you're not chayav. That's one of the ways the Gemara explains here. Then the

Gemara has another way to explain the machloket, but the way the Gemara puts it, that according to the second way, everyone holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה. The Rabbanan also, but the machloket is in something else, ילפינן זורק ממושיט. But according to the second way, everybody holds that when it comes into the space there, it's קלוטה כמי שהונחה. But the first way is that there's a machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim, and that's the way it seems that he was פושט, that the machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim is whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. So we have one thing here in the Gemara, a machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim, Rabbi Akiva says קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא, and the chachamim say we don't say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Tosafot, in Tosafot here בד\"ה לא אמרינן, the second tirutz, not to go into the kashya and everything, but the second tirutz, Tosafot says that קלוטה כמי שהונחה, if you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, it's a setirah, it's a contradiction to be able to say ילפינן זורק ממושיט. ילפינן זורק ממושיט means that the din of מושיט, special din, amongst the issurim of carrying on Shabbat, there is a melachah called מושיט. It's all a תולדה of הוצאה, but it's מושיט, that if you pick something up in רשות היחיד and you pass it, you don't throw it, you pass it over the רשות הרבים, put it down in רשות היחיד, you are chayav.

What about if you throw it? So the Gemara says there there're two sevarot. There's a סברא ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that we learn out זורק from מושיט. Just like if you pick it up in רשות היחיד and you pass it over רשות הרבים into the next רשות היחיד, you're chayav, because that's how it was in the Mishkan, if you throw it is exact same way. And another man d'amar says not. The Mishkan had מושיט, so מושיט you're chayav. If you throw it, you're not chayav. Zagt Tosafot, these two, ילפינן זורק ממושיט and קלוטה כמי שהונחה, don't fit together. Why? Because מושיט, the original din of מושיט is למעלה מיו\"ד. You carried it, you you carried it, you held held it, and you passed it from רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים into the next רשות היחיד, but it's למעלה מיו\"ד, higher than ten tefachim. Higher than ten tefachim normally in רשות הרבים, higher than ten tefachim is a מקום פטור. So when you passed it from רשות היחיד to the רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים למעלה מיו\"ד טפחים, you passed over a מקום פטור. Nevertheless, we learn out from the Mishkan that you're chayav. But if you throw it from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over רשות הרבים למעלה מיו\"ד, you threw it over a מקום פטור. If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that means that where going when it comes into the airspace, it landed, it stopped. So if you throw it from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד over למעלה מיו\"ד of the of their רשות הרבים, and you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, so it landed, it stopped in the מקום פטור. So it's not like מושיט. מושיט, when you pick it up in a רשות היחיד and you pass it over רשות הרבים, even though it went over the מקום פטור, but it didn't stop there. So here you're chayav. But if you throw it, it stopped in the מקום פטור. How could you be chayav? So Tosafot says, you can't work these two together. The only way you could learn ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that we learn out זורק from מושיט, and if you throw it over from a רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים over the מקום פטור, over the ten tefachim higher than the רשות הרבים, you should be chayav, is if we don't hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה. We don't hold that it stopped in the middle, then it's exactly like מושיט. It went from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the מקום פטור, but it didn't stop there. But if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that means it stopped there. So Tosafot says you can't have both together. Because if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה and therefore you're chayav by coming into the airspace, in the case of מושיט, if it's like זורק ממושיט, you should be patur, because the same logic that it stopped, in this case it makes it patur, because it stopped in the מקום פטור. Comes the Tosafot Yeshanim, and Tosafot Yeshanim says, \"No. It's no re'ayah from there. You could hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט, and you can hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Ai, it stopped in the middle, we say קלוטה, it stopped in the מקום פטור, and me'meila it should take away the issur?\" So he says, \"קלוטה כמי שהונחה we only say l'hachmir, not l'hakel. We only say קלוטה that it stopped if that stopping will make you chayav. But if you're going to say it stopped and because of that stopping it will make you patur, we don't say it.\" And me'meila, you can't tell me that if you hold קלוטה and you throw it over the מקום פטור, over the רשות הרבים מקום פטור, you should be patur because of קלוטה. קלוטה can't make you patur. קלוטה can make you chayav, but not make you patur. And he

brings a re'iyah: If you're saying קלוטה כמי שהונחה makes you patur also, how in the world is there such a thing as throwing ד' אמות ברשות הרבים? We know that one of the melachot is, you pick something up in רשות הרבים and you throw it and it goes four אמות, and then it falls in רשות הרבים. So there's an akirah and an hanachah in רשות הרבים, and ד' אמות you're chayav. How could you be chayav? If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, when it came into the air, it stopped. Imagine you carry something ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, but you stop every amah. You walk and you stop, you walk and you You shouldn't be chayav, because it's not You're only chayav if you have ד' אמות in a row, but if you stopped in the middle, not. If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that means that when you throw it, it stopped. So how is there ever a possibility of being chayav for throwing ד' אמות ברשות הרבים? Ela mai, we say קלוטה, those that say קלוטה hold of קלוטה, but not לפטור. By the ד' אמות, if you'll say קלוטה, it means that you won't be chayav. We don't say קלוטה in order to patur you. So we have a machloket here between Tosafos and the Tosafos Yeshanim. Tosafos says that we say קלוטה כמי even to patur you, and that's why Tosafos says that if it flew over, if you threw something from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the מקום through the מקום פטור, you can't be chayav, because קלוטה will make you patur. Since it stopped in a מקום פטור, you'll be patur. So Tosafos learns you could say קלוטה even to make you patur. And the Tosafos Yeshanim says, \"No. You don't say קלוטה to make you patur.\" Now,

according to Tosafos, what do we do with Tosafos Yeshanim's kashya? Tosafos Yeshanim asked a good she'eilah: If you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה אפילו to make you patur, how could you ever be chayav for throwing ד' אמות ברשות הרבים? So Tosafos answered that already. Not here, Tosafos later on on דף ה' עמוד ב', Tosafos asked the, and on ה' עמוד ב', yeah, Tosafos asked this shaila. You coming back? Tosafos asked this shaila. Tosafos answers that the Gemara says that ד' אמות ברשות הרבים is halacha l'Moshe miSinai, a special din, ein hachi nami. Normally you could say קלוטה. By ד' אמות, the Torah made a special din that you're chayav, halacha l'Moshe miSinai made you not patur, mimela you're chayav. He says, \"כעין קלוטה דרבי עקיבא, אף על גב דכמי שהונחה דמיא, בזורק ד' אמות ברשות הרבים חייב, ולא אמרינן כמי שהונחה תוך ד' אמות.\" We don't say הונחה. איי, normally we say Coming back. Even though normally we say קלוטה, but here we don't say it, it's halacha l'Moshe miSinai. But the bottom line is that we have a machlokes here that the Tosafos Yeshanim says that we don't say קלוטה להקל, because we're saying קלוטה as if it stopped, mimela you should not be chayav chayav because of that, that we don't say. And Tosafos says we say, if you say קלוטה, you say קלוטה. 'Kay. So we have two things so far. One is a general machlokes whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Rabbi Akiva says we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. If you throw something and it comes into the air, it's as if it stopped. Rabbanan say we do not say קלוטה. The second machlokes we have in that גופא, מחלוקת between Tosafos and Tosafos Yeshanim. Tosafos says we say if we say קלוטה, we say it all the way. We say it in every case. Wherever it comes into the air, we say קלוטה. If that'll make you chayav, you say chayav. If that'll make you patur, you're patur. And the Tosafot Yeshanim says no, you only say קלוטה if it makes you chayav, but to make קלוטה make you patur we don't say. So number one, we have to understand the first thing: What's the sevara of the machloket whether we say קלוטה or not? Or better said, it's not a she'elah what is the sevara of the machloket, what's the sevara of Rabbi Akiva? Why in the world should we say something that's flying in the air, we say it like it stopped? Where in the world do we get this from? Flying in the air, it's not stopping. So the Rabbanan we understand, לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה, we don't say flying in the air is stopped. But Rabbi Akiva says yes. Why would Rabbi Akiva say that? What's the logic behind saying that that's stopped in the is flying in the air as if it's stopped? That's one she'elah. Now, there are some that want to explain that the machloket of Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim whether we say קלוטה is connected to the Tosafot on דף ז'. Tosafot on דף ז', the Gemara there talks about a case like this: If somebody threw something, use this paper for this, potatoes, if someone had a לבינה, someone was standing in רשות הרבים, picked something up and threw it, and it landed on, got stuck to the wall. There was a wall under ten טפחים, because if it was higher than ten טפחים it's not in רשות הרבים, it didn't land in רשות הרבים, because רשות הרבים goes only up to ten. But you threw it and it landed on the wall. So, it says you're chayav. Why are you chayav? Because you picked it up, you threw ד' אמות in רשות הרבים, so you made עקירה, stopped here as it's in the רשות הרבים, sticking out, it's in the רשות הרבים, so you're chayav. The question is, if it fell on this, if it landed at which is called רשות הרבים, it stopped, okay, but on what did it land? On the air! It got stuck to the wall, but why is it This is the רשות הרבים and it landed here, but at the bottom, what's the bottom of this חפץ? A sticky thing, you stuck a sticky, it landed, but at the bottom of it is air. How could you be chayav when the din is that it's only chayav if you make a hanachah on a מקום ד'? Hanachah has to be in a place of ד'. If you threw a ball and the ball this is this floor, and the ball landed here and the sticky ball and it got stuck to the wall, so it landed in the רשות הרבים, but it's not it's not on a מקום ד'. So how are you chayav? So Tosafos brings a machloket between the Rabbeinu Tam and the Riva. So Rabbeinu Tam says, \"You know what? You know when you're chayav? If this is ד' על ד'.\" Even though this is a wall, it didn't land like this, on top, because if it landed on top it would be a different din. It landed like this, so it landed in the אוויר רשות הרבים. This. Huh? No, למטה מ-י'. But this part, let's say למטה מ-י', this is למטה מ-י', this part, this wall has to be four by four, and since it landed on the wall, it's considered it landed on four by four, even though where did it land in רשות הרבים which is air, but nevertheless this ד' על ד' makes it so that it landed on ד' על ד'. The Riva says, \"No, it doesn't have to be ד' על ד', even if it's less than ד' על ד'.\" But what? Since it landed in the air, it's רואה פני הקרקע. This this thing that landed is looking down and is over the ground, so it's as if it landed on the ground. These are the words of Tosafos. The first status in תוספות says, אומר רבינו תם דאם נח למעלה מש- צריך שיהיה בפניה ארבע על ארבע, has to be ד' על ד' on the face here. And then the ריב\"א אומר, פירש דאף על פי לא בעי שיהיה בפני הלבנה בכותל ד' על ד', you don't have to have it, דכיוון שרואה את הקרקע חשיב כמונח על גבי קרקע. Since it's רואה פני הקרקע, it's like it landed on the קרקע, like it's on the קרקע, and if it lands on the floor, there's no such thing as ד' על ד', the floor is the reshut harabim. How else did it land? It got stuck, otherwise it would just fly off. It must have been, the Gemara says, דבילה שמנה, a thick, a fat fig, a date, which landed or got stuck. You took gum, no, a guy had a big piece of gum, and he threw it, and it landed. Or the ball had a little bit of glue on it, and it landed. So here we have a machloket. According to the first פשט, Rabbeinu Tam, we say that it landed, and it's chayav, but this needs to be ד' על ד' here. Why? אי רואה פני הקרקע? So Rabbeinu Tam holds that doesn't help you. The fact that it sees the ground doesn't help you. אלא מאי, what? It has to ממש, it landed on this. So this has to be ד' על ד'. And the Riva says, no, we look at it as if it landed on the ground. So they want to say that this is basically the machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim. Rabbi Akiva says that since it's רואה פני הקרקע, since it sees the ground, it's as if it landed on the ground. So when it goes through the air space, and there the air is over the ground, it was if it landed on the ground. And the chachamim say, we don't say such a thing. We don't say it's as if it landed on the ground, because we don't look at it as רואה פני הקרקע. Seeing the ground doesn't help it. Mimela, it didn't land. So this is one of the ways they explain the machloket, which is hard to say מכמה טעמים, and it's not exactly the same thing. I don't want to just spend time on saying why it's not exactly the same thing. But what I'm trying to say is, back to the she'eilah, what is the sevara of the machloket whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה or not? In other words, even if you didn't chap all the details I said, still could continue listening. The she'eilah is a very simple she'eilah: Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה. It's flying in the air, it's like it stopped. Sounds like a joke! What what do you mean, stopped? It didn't stop! You know, עינינו הרואות in the ma'aseh that it stopped, it did not stop! So why is it called a hanachah? Then we have to understand the second machloket, machloket between Tosafot and the Tosafot Yeshanim. And here again, you have to Tosafot is not hard to understand. Tosafot says that if you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה for whatever reason, it's as if it stopped, whatever it is. If because it stopped you're chayav, you'll be chayav. If because it stopped it'll make you patur, you'll be פטור. If it stopped, then it should be the same thing לחומרא or לקולא. What's the sevara of the Tosafos Yeshanim that when do we say the sevara that in the air it stopped, if that will make you חייב, להחמיר. But if it will make you פטור, we don't say it. What what's the logic here? Then there's another thing here. The

Ramban says on this Tosafos, Tosafos said that if it flies through the למעלה מי' and you say קלוטה, it should make you פטור, because it stopped in the מקום פטור. The Ramban says למעלה מי' we don't say we don't say קלוטה. Also argues on Tosafos, but he says we don't say קלוטה למעלה מי'. If it goes למעלה מי' we don't say even if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, but it's only in the רשות הרבים. In the מקום פטור we will not say קלוטה, because it's a separate רשות. And from Rashi is משמע the same way. Which Rashi? So if we look at the Rashi, it's כדאי to look inside, we look at the Rashi. Rashi says on דף ד' עמוד ב', the first Rashi on דף ד' עמוד ב', Rashi says that the machloket is בנוגע between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים is למטה מי'. The machloket is whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה if it went למטה מי'. Because אילו למעלה מי', if it be higher than י', לאו אויר רשות הרבים הוא, אלא אויר מקום פטור הוא. Not it's the אויר למעלה מי' is אויר מקום פטור. And then if I would write the Rashi, I would write it like this: and if it be למעלה מי', you couldn't say chayav. Why couldn't say chayav? Even למטה מי' you say chayav because קלוטה כמי שהונחה, as if it stopped in רשות הרבים. למעלה מי' you wouldn't be chayav, what would you say why? Because it stopped in a מקום פטור! So you shouldn't be chayav. That's not what Rashi says! Because in למעלה מי' אפילו קלוטה ליכא! There is no קלוטה! What do you mean there's no קלוטה? We don't say קלוטה למעלה מי', why not? It should say we say קלוטה, but you're patur. Well, the bottom line would be the same, that the Gemara is telling you למטה מי' because of קלוטה you're chayav, למעלה מי' even if you hold קלוטה you're patur, why? Because it stopped in a מקום פטור. Rashi doesn't use those words. Rashi says למעלה מי' there is no קלוטה. Why is there no קלוטה למעלה? If if if whatever the logic is, if you say something that flies in the air, it's considered it stopped, wherever it flies it stopped! The difference is, what is that place? Is that place a רשות הרבים, you're chayav. If the place is a מקום פטור, you're patur. But why did Rashi also say אפילו קלוטה לית ליה? So Rashi is telling you that there is no דין קלוטה כמי שהונחה למעלה מיוד, which is like the Ramban. Question is, why? So we, if you remember now we

have three she'elot here, not not kushiyot, three things that we're trying to understand: What's the machloket, what's the sevara of קלוטה כמי שהונחה? And and after we know what the sevara is, what's the other sevara and not? What's the sevara of the machloket between the Tosafot, Tosafot ישנים? Why does Tosafot Yeshanim say that we only say קלוטה להחמיר, not להקל? And what's the sevara of the Ramban and Rashi that קלוטה, even if you hold קלוטה, it doesn't apply in a in a מקום פטור? Only in the only in a רשות הרבים, in a מקום פטור you won't say קלוטה. If you say it stopped, it stopped wherever it is. So, to understand this, so, number one, I want to give just like a hakdamah. And anybody who heard from some shiurim, will know that this is standard. Any time we find in the Gemara something, one thing is like something else even though it isn't, we right away have three ways of learning it, which basically is the two main ways and then there's one in the middle. Best place is, nu, you know already from shlichut. שלוחו של אדם כמותו. כמותו, the שליח is like the משלח. The שליח is not the משלח. The משלח is Reuven, the שליח is Shimon. It's a different name, he looks differently, he's a different person. Nevertheless, the Torah says that שליח is like the משלח. So, we have basically the two ways. There are three ways, but basically the two. One is, yes, the Torah is מחדש that the שליח becomes the משלח. The second way is that the Torah is

not מחדש שליח, the there's a third way, but the other extreme, the שליח is not the משלח, nothing. The Torah says that even though he's not the משלח, the din is like is as if he would be the משלח. And this is a she'elah that, and for this sevara, every time we have so, two things that one is like the other, there's always this shaila. We always say this. In one of the sefarim, Shaarei Yeshiva Gedolah I have a list, a random list of 35 places, 35, 35 Likutei Sichos, where the Rebbe in different inyanim has this shaila in different things, which one thing is not. Just to give you an example: תוספת שבת, time before Shabbos where you add. It's not Shabbos, it becomes like Shabbos. Nu, which way is it? Does it become really Shabbos or it's not really Shabbos? You have anything that you have. Or we learned in Kiddushin: שוה כסף ככסף, what is the pshat? טעם כעיקר. All over, we have. Is it does it become like that, or the Torah says אף על פי it's not, it's not? That's the taytsh כ... For example, you know, like a sefer has a shaila: when like this, in order to be chayav to eat treifah food, you have to eat a kezayit. But if you eat a whole a whole insect, which is a גאנצע בריה, you're chayav even if it's small. So he has a shaila: is the pshat this becomes like a kezayit, or even though it's not a kezayit, you're still chayav? It's the same shaila that he has. The same you can have in everything. When we say שני דברים אינן ברשותו של אדם והתורה עשתה כאילו ברשותו, חמץ בפסח and בור ברשות הרבים, it's not yours, but it's like yours. Does it become yours or not yours? You could go on and on in so many things what this is. And this is this is one of those things: קלוטה כמי שהונחה. So you

have two ways: you could say the pshat is that קלוטה is הונחה. And you could say a different way: קלוטה is not הונחה, it has the same din as הונחה. And I'll tell put it in different words, and I'll say the the basis behind it I'll say soon. But while I'm looking around, the two guys that walked out, I didn't see them come back yet. They said they're coming back, but they're not back yet. Oh, someone said, 'Wait, wait.' No, like I said, I see that the shiur right in the beginning gives a person shilshul, so you never know, you know. What's the nafka minah? What's the nafka minah if they come back or not? Oh, that's that's a big nafka minah. The nafka mina is if they stayed by the shiur or didn't stay at shiur, that's the נפקא מינה לפועל. Okay, right, but I didn't I didn't say anything yet. This is just like a hakdamah. In other words, if you say, let's say כמותו ממש, that means to do something you have to do it yourself. To מקדש אשה, you have to be מקדש אשה. If you say the shaliach could do it and he's כמותו ממש, that means that you have whatever positive thing you need for for him to do, that the shaliach becomes that. The other way is the pshat it's not chiyuv, it's שלילה. You know what שלילה means? There is a problem if you if the guy himself doesn't do it, there's a problem. Comes the Torah and says that if you make the guy into a shaliach, the Torah doesn't care if there's a problem. The Torah takes away the problem. If a person, Reuven wants to מקדש a אשה, he has to מקדש a אשה. If someone else goes and is מקדש a אשה for him, you don't have him. But if you make him into a shaliach, the Torah says we don't care if you don't have him, that's the second way. It's takeh not him, but if you made him into a shaliach, the Torah says we don't care if it's not him. The first way is no, the Torah cares, it has to be him, but the Torah says it became him. So the first way is that it becomes that thing ממש באופן חיובי, in a positive way, and the other way, a shaliach takes away the chesaron. If you don't have the man, you don't have it, but there's a chesaron if you don't have it, and it takes away. The same thing we're going to say here, that there are two ways to learn, but you have to have a basis for each way, it's not you could say a pshat which makes no sense and it's a mai nafka mina. But there are two ways, and then I will explain why. One way is, as I would explain, that קלוטה is הונחה. The Torah says, yes, the Chachamim say קלוטה becomes הונחה. That's like the first way, שלוחו של אדם כמותו באופן חיובי. And the other way we'll see is, no, קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean that as if it stopped. What does it mean? Now I'll explain why, but I'll say what does it mean? It means if it didn't stop, you got a problem. If it didn't stop, you didn't have a הנחה, so there's something missing. Comes the ההלכה and says קלוטה כמי שהונחה that it's not missing, we don't care if it didn't stop. See the vort? It's not קלוטה כמי שהונחה I still don't I don't explain why, but you'll see that soon. But this way is a שיינע פשט. Not that פשט קלוטה is taytsh it stopped. That's pretty weird, it's in the air and it stopped? No, it takeh didn't stop. But it has the same din as if it would have stopped. In other words, we don't care that there's a problem that it didn't stop. Normally, if you make an עקירה, and you don't have a הנחה, there's a problem. You're missing a הנחה. Here קלוטה does is not missing a הנחה, that's why it's כמי שהונחה. Not that it's like it stopped. There's nothing wrong if it didn't stop, just like if it would have stopped you would have been חייב, in this case if it didn't stop you're still חייב. Now let's understand the two ways, why would it be one way, what would be the other? So let's start from the second way. To explain why is it the How could you say a פשט? If we could get to such a פשט, that would be the best, because to explain קלוטה as if it stopped, it's it's funny. It's in the it's flying in the air and it stopped, so fantastical such as a fantasy, where did you get this from? If you can explain the second way, טאקע מפורש didn't stop. But the Torah says has the same din as if it would have stopped, because we don't care it didn't, why? So let's first get to understand why do we keep an עקירה and a הנחה? Obviously, if you want this is a דרך הלימוד בכלל if you think, you want to explain is it like it stopped or not, let's see what הנחה then, if you know what הנחה is, then we know if it stopped or not, this. So we've been going on for on and on from the beginning of the year till now that what's the ענין of עקירה and הנחה? By a hotza'ah is a מלאכה גרועה. Hotza'ah is a problem. Hotza'ah is missing the real quality of a of a melachah, because there is no change. Nevertheless, it's חייב, and it's a melachah. Why is it a melachah? Sof kol sof, there is no change, so what do we say, why is there הנחה, why is there a melachah? איך משנה is by ד' אמות. So I explained many times that's why we need an עקירה and a הנחה. עקירה means something is laying, it's not just laying there, it's מושרש. When you pick it up, you're uprooting it from its place, from its רשות. You're taking it out, so you're taking it away from that רשות and you're putting it into next רשות. And then when you put it down, you are משריש it again k'vayachol, you're putting it down again into another רשות, u'memila ke'ilu there is a change. That's what we've been saying in the inyan of עקירה and הנחה. Lichorah, you could ask a she'eilah on this:

why do we need הנחה also? Why is it not enough if you do an עקירה? If the whole purpose is to make that change, the moment you pick it up from רשות היחיד, and you're uprooting it, and you're taking it out of the רשות היחיד, and you're bringing it into the רשות הרבים, it's already a change. Why is that not good enough? If the whole thing is a change, why do you have to have it double, from עקירה from here and putting it down in the other רשות? Lichorah, the עקירה itself should be good enough, because you are doing something: you're taking it away from the רשות and you're putting it into another רשות, so you weren't משריש it in another רשות, but there's definitely a change. Imagine b'gashmiyut if it would be. B'gashmiyut, if it would be planted, and you tear it out, it's a melachah. So here, the הגיון, I wouldn't say the word גרוע, the הגיון, you also making a change. So lichorah, when you make the עקירה, and you take it out into the next רשות, Enough! The moment it comes in the next רשות, you should be chayav. Why do you need the הנחה? So, I'm going to explain a possible sevara. Since you picked it up with your hand from the first רשות, so when it's in the first רשות, it's in your hand, and now you're taking it out to the other רשות, and it's still in your hand. So mimila, ke'ilu it never really left the first רשות, because when you picked it up in that first רשות, and it came into your hand, it was still in the first רשות, and now it's still in your hand. It's כאילו נימא there is still a המשך to what you did in the beginning, and you didn't let it go. When you put it down and you take your hand away, and you put it down, so now you have a full-fledged change. But here, if you picked it up, and when you picked it up it was in your hand, and it was still in the first רשות, and you continued, it didn't really leave. Al derech I give you a dugma, everything is a dugma, an example, by a get. What's the din by a get? If a person has a string attached to a get, and he throws the get to the woman, and she holds the get and he holds the string, and it's not going to rip, I mean and you can pull it back, so what's the din? She's not divorced. Why? The Gemara says. But what's the what's the חסרון? It's not called נתינה, not full נתינה. No, it's called נתינה, not called כריתות. By a get it says it has to be cut off. You didn't cut off. גם she got the get, but you didn't cut off. Why didn't you cut off? Because there are strings attached. There's a string that's attached, and you never let go of it 100%. Why? Because you had it in your hand, and you still have it a little bit in your hand, even though you gave away the get. I'm just using this as an example, that's a halacha in הלכות גיטין. But the lashon in the Gemara is it's not called cut off. It never left you 100%. So when you pick up a object, so even though you picked it up and you were oker it, but you oker it and it's in your hand. So now it's in the first רשות still, never left the first רשות, it's in your hand. And the position of it being in your hand you're continuing, and it's still in your hand. So in order for it to be a full-fledged change, you have to put it down. Okay? Oh, one second. We'll we'll get to that in a second. Oh, yeah? Okay. I don't know how to play chess, but that sounds good, sounds like a good mashal, yeah. Lefi zeh, the only reason you need a hanacha is not because you need a hanacha. You need hanacha only because without a hanacha there is something missing. Akira we said you need to have an akira. Hanacha, all you need is that if not, it never really left the first רשות. Lefi zeh, what happens if you throw it? So it left your hand. If it left your hand, you takeh don't need a hanacha. So the akira and the

going to the other רשות should be enough to be chayav. You don't need a hanacha, because you don't really need a hanacha. You just need a hanacha in order to take away the problem of it being in your hand. But in this case, you have no problem because it's not in your hand. And that could be the pshat in קלוטה כמי שהונחה. The second way, not that it's hanachah. The second way we said קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean that it's like it stopped. It means that we don't care it didn't stop. You're חייב אף על פי we don't אף על פי it didn't stop. And that's the pshat, you could learn that way. So the fact that you picked it up, and you threw it from the you made a akirah in reshut hayachid and you threw it into reshut harabim, so the moment it came to reshut harabim after a regular akirah, you should be chayav right away! That's pshat קלוטה כמי שהונחה. That's one way to learn קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that it's not because it made a hanachah. That's the second way, that it's taking away the חסרון, but not, can we say, ממש, not that it's rested. Then we have the other way which I mentioned in the shiur, you can learn that קלוטה כמי שהונחה means it really rested. איי it sounds pretty strange, so I explained a sevara, that when something goes, the she'eilah is how do we look at it? Be'emet, everything is made up of נקודות נקודות. Everything is made up of רצוא ושוב. When it flies in the air, it's be'emet what's happening is, you can't see it, it stops every split-second, even less than that. You just can't see it, so it goes so fast that it looks like it's going. על דרך, it's not the same, על דרך like when a Azzai. What does Ben Azzai hold? מהלך כעומד, that when a person walks every step he takes, even though he's walking, every step he takes is considered a hanachah. Why? Because walking means that I never stop, but that's made up of stopping. When you put your foot down as you go, you're stopping, but you're going so fast that you can't tell it's stopped. That's why I said it's only a dugma, it's not the same. Here, not exactly the same way, because here it's actually flying in the air. But flying in the air is made up of like that, because when you have a lot of dots moving on, it turns into one long, long stretch. I don't want to go into the more fantasies of it, like seven סברות of you have He says in in Olam HaHigayon, when you have a שטח it's made up of נקודות בכלל, even when you walk. It has all kinds of things in שכל to abstract thinking. But this way you're going to say like this: be'emet you need a hanachah. Every time that you're chayav you need a akirah and a hanachah, and קלוטה כמי שהונחה. When it flies, it's like it stopped. When you're holding it in your hand, it's not, because it's in your hand. But if you throw it and it's flying in the air, קלוטה כמי שהונחה. By place is in the hand it's not like that. קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Now

let's go according to both ways, what would be the מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim? So let's try to start first way. Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה. What does that mean, according to the first way? That the reason why you need a hanachah בכלל, because otherwise there's a problem, it never really left the first reshut because it's still in your hand. So when you throw it and it's not in your hand, then it's enough. What would the Rabbanan hold? Maybe the Rabbanan hold not like that. The Rabbanan hold the second way. They hold that you need hanachah for hanachah, so flying in the air is not a hanachah, according to that way. Or you can say a little different. That according to this first way, the Rabbanan agree that you don't really need a hanachah. And the only reason you need a hanachah is because otherwise it's connected to before because it's still in your hand. And still they say we will not say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. You know why, you could say? Because we said the chesaron of the hand is because it's never really left the first place because it's still in your hand. When you throw it, we can look at the same way. How does this thing fly in the air? It has a כח הזריקה. You put in the כח הזריקה into the into the object. Like in chassidut, you put in your koach into it, and as long as the koach lasts, it flies, and when does it fall? When the koach wears off. So the Rabbanan will look at it and say that be'emet, just like when you carry it with your hand you need a hanachah, why? Because otherwise it's still connected to you, because it's still in your hand. If you threw it, it's the same problem. Rabbi Akiva says no, that if you threw it, it's already disconnected from you, u-memila you have a full-fledged melachah, a change: you picked it up, that's akirah, and you threw it, it left you, and it went into another reshut, that's enough to be chayav. And the fact that it's flying because you threw it is still disconnected. And the Rabbanan say, it's still called connected, u-memila you still need a real hanachah, and that is not enough. And you still need to take, not a real hanachah, you need to make sure that the connection is not there anymore, and that's only by putting it down. So according to the first way, back to this, קלוטה כמי שהונחה means כמי שהונחה that it's not really put down, but we don't care if it was not put down. According to the second way, what's the machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim? Rabbi Akiva holds that when it's flying in the air, it's as if it's constantly stopping, u-memila there is hanachah. So the second way, everyone holds you need to have a הנחה באופן חיובי. This is a הנחה באופן חיובי, it actually stopped. איי, the problem of ד' על ד', so the Gemara taka says, according to Rabbi Akiva you don't need ד' על ד'. That's the raaya. But it stopped. And the Chachamim, they say, well, in theory, in היגיון it stopped, but בפועל it didn't stop, and therefore the Chachamim say we do not say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. If it's based on היגיון, yeah, but depends which היגיון. There's a היגיון of simple, like picking up and taking it, and then a היגיון of something that's not ניכר at all. It's not No, you But what kind of היגיון? In היגיון you have many דרגות. You have very abstract and you have a little bit abstract. The fact that we say that picking it up is called taking it away from the שורש is a שטיקל היגיון, but still you're picking it up from the רשות. This is such a far-fetched היגיון that you can say, this you say and this you don't. So

what I want to say is that the Tosafos Yeshanim will hold hold the first way and Tosafos would hold the second way. If you hold the first way, that what's the peshat קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that you don't need the הנחה, because it's not in your hand so there's no problem, so there is no הנחה חיובית, there's nothing that you did as a הנחה. And therefore it only works להחמיר ולא להקל. We understand why. It only works that if you had an עקירה, and you took it out, and you already had the שינוי רשות, so normally you're still missing, here you're not missing anything. But a הנחה is not a positive thing that happened here. By throwing in the air, the קלוטה is not a positive thing that happening. To פוטר you, you have to have a הנחה. True, if you have a חיוב and we want to make you פטור from the חיוב, there has to be something that you're doing to make you פטור. But what we're saying according to the first way, קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean you made a הנחה. בפירוש didn't do anything. אלא מאי, there's a change in the רשות, the עקירה is good enough. So, if עקירה is good enough, you're חייב for that עקירה. But in the case where we need the hanacha to make you patur, there is no hanacha according to the first way. There is no hanacha chiyuvit to say that when you did this you are patur, umimeila he says you can't, קלוטה כמי שהונחה cannot make you patur. When can קלוטה כמי שהונחה make you patur? Means if something is chayav and you did something to take away the chiyuv. You did nothing. There's no So, the second way is Yeah, like that. The second Or we're saying that when it came into the air it's as if it landed, so you did a hanacha, when you do a hanacha you're taking away the chiyuv that's there. You could take away the chiyuv. So, it could make the chiyuv, it could break the chiyuv. But if you're saying it's not a real hanacha, ela mai? It's no problem, the chiyuv is there already, כי the chiyuv is there already, so it doesn't take away the chiyuv. So, you're machmir because you don't need it. But if you want to use it to poter you, there you have to have something to do to take away the chiyuv, and that doesn't work. And this is the sevara, so we have like this: Where we asked the two she'elot, what is the difference, what's the machloket whether akirah, whether קלוטה כמי שהונחה or not? And the second she'eilah, what's the sevara of the machloket in Tosafot Yeshanim? Now we have it. The machloket Tosafot, Tosafot Yeshanim is what is the pshat of קלוטה כמי שהונחה? That according to the Tosafot Yeshanim קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean there was a hanacha, but there wasn't, and we don't care, umimeila

when to poter you it doesn't work? מה שאין כן תוספות learn קלוטה כמי שהונחה means that there was a hanacha, so it works for to poter you also, and therefore according to Tosafot it poter's you. Now לפי זה, we understand the sevara of the Ramban and the sevara of Rashba, they learned like the Tosafot Yeshanim that קלוטה כמי שהונחה that's not because there was a הנחה. קלוטה כמי שהונחה is because the fact that you picked it up and you threw it and it came into another רשות already is enough, you don't have to have a הנחה. But that's only good if it came into another רשות, so the עקירה is good enough. What happens if it didn't come in another רשות? Then the עקירה is not good enough yet. In other words, קלוטה means that the fact that it came into that other רשות is good enough. What happens if it came into a מקום פטור? Now, מקום פטור is not another רשות, וממילא there is no קלוטה there. If you learn the other way like Tosafot, קלוטה כמי שהונחה, whatever flies in the air it stopped, so whatever it is, if it flies in the air of a מקום פטור it stops in the מקום פטור, and you're פטור because it's מקום פטור. But if you're saying, no, it didn't stop, ela mai, by קלוטה you don't need the הנחה because the change of רשות is good enough, there's no change of רשות here, because it came into a מקום פטור. And that's what Tosafot Yeshanim and the Ramban learn that you don't say קלוטה there. Not that you're פטור, you don't say קלוטה, because the whole concept of קלוטה doesn't apply, because it came to a מקום פטור which is not a רשות. And that's that's not so pashut.

There is a שאלה we have, and we spoke about it once before, is a מקום פטור a רשות or not? You remember we spoke about it? There are two ways to learn: You could say a מקום פטור is a רשות, but a רשות הפטור, or you can say a מקום פטור is not a רשות. Whichever way we're going to learn, it makes sense. If a מקום פטור is not a רשות בכלל, then adraba it makes sense that the only time you don't you say klutah when it came to another reshut and you don't need a hanachah. But in the case of where it came to a מקום פטור, it didn't come to another reshut, because a מקום פטור is not a reshut. So, therefore, we can't say klutah there. Not we can't say if you're patur because it's klutah in it stopped in the מקום It didn't stop because klutah never stops. Ela mai, it's enough? In this case, not enough. Afilu if you're going to learn that a מקום פטור is a reshut, ela mai, it's a reshut that's patur, also makes sense. When is it called a shinui by throwing it in the air? When it came from this reshut to an opposite reshut. Then it's a change. But if it comes from this reshut to a reshut that you're patur, it's not a רשות הופכי, so it's not a real change, so we don't say klutah. So whichever way we're going to learn in the geder of a מקום פטור, but according to this, we will not say klutah in a case of a מקום פטור, because there is no change. And klutah doesn't mean there is a hanachah, it doesn't mean it stopped, it means that there is, without stopping, there's a change. And there is no change, because there's no other reshut. Probably, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, mistama. מקום פטור, a car is a מקום פטור מדאורייתא, yeah, yeah. Taka wouldn't say klutah. This is all according to the pshat of the way we're learning in Tosafot Yeshanim, which explains, Rav Walvel, Tosafot Yeshanim brings a rayah to this din that you don't say klutah lehakel. The rayah is

from ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים. It's the same thing over there. Why don't you say קלוטה ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? Because there is no change. קלוטה is not pshat that it stopped. קלוטה is the pshat that you picked it up and you you changed the רשות. When you pick up something ברשות הרבים, and it goes into the ברשות הרבים and it continues traveling for one אמה, for two אמות, what kind of change is there? There's no change, how could you say קלוטה? If you learn קלוטה which means it stopped, then takeh you got a problem, קלוטה you got a problem. After every אמה or every half an אמה, where it stops, so why are you chayav? So according to it's a problem. What's the answer? Halacha l'Moshe miSinai, Tosafos has no other answer. Takeh it's a problem. Mah she'ein kein according to the Tosafos Yeshanim, there's no problem, because there was no change. The whole thing of קלוטה means that we don't need the hanacha because there's a change. The only time is a change is if it goes to another רשות. Going from in רשות הרבים גופא, you're picking it up and it's going like this, and it's all this, there's no change. So you're not so it doesn't do anything, there's no קלוטה there. The only time it could be a change is if it goes more than ד׳ אמות, so maybe takeh, maybe we'll say קלוטה. If you throw throw throw something ברשות הרבים and it goes more than ד׳ אמות, and it got burned in the air, takeh, maybe you're chayav, because it got into the air, it came a different רשות, it left and that's called in different רשות after ד׳ אמות. The Baal Hamaor, the famous Baal Hamaor that it's considered like a different רשות, takeh chayav. So when the when the Tosafos Yeshanim brings a raaya, it's not just a a raaya from a זײטיגע זאך that we see that להקל we don't say it, because over there, otherwise how is the ד׳ אמות, זריקה ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? It's more than that. The raaya is from the sechel there. Why טאקע is the din we don't say קלוטה by ד׳ אמות, זריקה ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? Because there was not you can't say קלוטה. קלוטה doesn't mean that it landed. קלוטה means that the fact that you did עקירה and you made a שינוי רשות, that's enough. There was no שינוי רשות here. Now, exact same thing here, Tosafos says בנוגע למעלה מ-, what does he say? למעלה from י׳ טפחים, there is he says you can't say קלוטה. So he uses a lashon because it's להקל, it's not worth להקל, because you can't say קלוטה there. And this how Rashi learns also, we could say that's why Rashi says that למעלה מיו״ד there is no קלוטה. The peirush how it comes out, always when it comes the last 10 minutes, I see the 10 minutes, it's it's not enough time to explain what like you know what to say, so I'll say it as I try to say it bekitzur. So it comes that there's a machloket between Rashi and Tosafos whether we really need a הנחה באופן חיובי or הנחה באופן שלילי is enough. According to Tosafos, you have to have a hanachah, because in order to have עקירה in order to have a שינוי, you have to pick it up and you have to put it down. According to Tosafot Yeshanim, the Rambam we're saying, according to Rashi, there's no din of hanachah that you must have hanachah. If you don't have hanachah, you got a problem. So it's hanachah that you've got to make sure that you don't have the missing hanachah, whatever you you're missing something you don't have. This will explain another machloket in Rashi and Tosafos, but this is later on, a shvere sugya in the Gemara. So all Shabbos is שווער, you know, you see the Gemara we're learning now דף ד׳ is דף ד׳ עמוד ב׳ is a שווערע גמרא. Comes to דף ח׳ with כוורת, pretty hard over there. But there there is a machloket between Rashi and Tosafos. I

mentioned in the shiur once before, you pick up a כוורת, a beehive, or the same can be any box which is 10 טפחים high and 4 טפחים wide, and you Pick it up and you throw it ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים. Pick it up from the floor, and you throw it. So the Gemara says, if it's if it's complete, has this שיעור, פטור. You are פטור. You're not חייב, even though you threw it ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים. זאגט Rashi, why are you פטור? So Rashi says, because it's a רשות לעצמו. Any box that's ten טפחים high and four by four, is a רשות היחיד, it's its own רשות. דגמרינן, ממשכן גמרינן שהיו זורקים מחטים במלאכתם, ולא היו זורקים רשויות. We don't find in the Mishkan that they threw רשויות. A whole רשות they threw? So if you threw a רשות, you're פטור. That's what Rashi says. Comes Tosafos, Tosafos is a different פשט why you're פטור if you threw it. Listen to this. This is, and this also, this Tosafos over there, דיבור המתחיל רחבה, is a very הגיונדיקע תוספות, a Tosafos that deals with abstract thought thinking, פאסט נאר פאר א קאצקער אזא תוספות, שהכוורת עצמה נעשית רשות היחיד לכשתנוח. If you pick up this כוורת, you're picking up a רשות היחיד. You're throwing it in the air, it flies ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, it lands. As it lands, it turns back into a רשות היחיד. See, when it's in the air, it's not a רשות היחיד. So it's flying in the רשות הרבים. You started off with a רשות היחיד, you threw it in air of רשות הרבים, and it landed. So, and mimela it is, דהוי כזורק מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. And what's the din over there? פטור, כדאמר לעיל, וכי נילף זורק ממושיט? So, ואפילו לרבי עקיבא דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה, הכא פטור. Why? Because דכל מקום שינוח הרי הוא חשוב כרשות היחיד. Because wherever it'll land, it'll be a רשות היחיד. So the reason you're patur, he says, because you threw a רשות היחיד that started with רשות היחיד, went through the air of רשות הרבים, comes down, so it's מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. And Tosafos teitcht azoy, because וחשבינן כאילו נחה אחר שנעשית רשות היחיד, דהנחה happened ke'ilu after it became a רשות היחיד. Follow? In the air it's not, then it fell down. As it landed, what are you chayav for? For when it makes an hanachah. When it makes the hanachah, as it lands, two things happen here: when it falls, it turns into a רשות. In the air? No, a רשות can't be, there's no flying רשות. A רשות is when something is standing in the רשות הרבים, has this shiur. So when it landed on the floor, it became a רשות היחיד, and you did the hanachah. What came first? So Tosafos says, כאילו נחה אחר שנעשית רשות היחיד. דהנחה that we want to make you chayav for is after it became a רשות היחיד. Mimela, it started off רשות היחיד, דעקירה was רשות היחיד, went through רשות הרבים, then it landed after it became a רשות היחיד, so when when you did the hanachah, it already is a רשות היחיד from before. Why? Why do we say it landed before It became a רשות היחיד before it landed? So mimela the hanachah you did was a hanachah in רשות היחיד. There's two things we said here: the hanachah has to accomplish two things, make it into rules of a רשות היחיד. So we're saying like this: the hanacha that we want to make you chayav for came after it's a רשות היחיד, so mimalei you can't be chayav for that hanacha. But the hanacha to make it into a רשות היחיד, that came first. Why? What what's the logic here? It's a מאדנע זאך. You could say maybe גיטה וידה באין כאחד, sometimes we have two things happen at the same time, but that doesn't apply here. You know, we're not going to get into the details, too late. But the she'eilah, what is the logic here? It's a feine shaila, it's mamash a מאדנע תוספות. This, like I said, it's like a קאצקערדיקע type of thinking. It fell down and became a רשות היחיד, two things happened: when it landed and it became מונח, it's a reshut, and you're chayav for hanacha. You say no, first it became the reshut. Through what did it become a reshut? Through landing! So there was hanacha already! So there's an hanacha, it became a reshut, and then happens the hanacha to be chayav, and mimalei it came after it became a reshut, it can't be chayav, because you can't be chayav for רשות היחיד. What's the logic? And I understand why Rashi doesn't learn like that, because it doesn't sound right. So Rashi learns a different thing, because they threw reshuyot and in in Mishkan they didn't throw reshuyot. So I want to explain like this: We just kept on saying the whole time that according to Tosafos, the hanacha does not have to be a real hanacha. No, wait, according to hanacha has to be a real hanacha, sorry, according to Rashi and the Tosafos Yeshanim, the only reason it's hanacha is because otherwise Otherwise you're missing something, you have a problem. According to Tosafos, you must have a הנחה באופן חיובי. You must, in order to be chayav, it must land באופן חיובי, that makes the chiyuv. When we say that the hanacha makes it into a reshus, and makes it into mechitzos, for that you don't have to have הנחה חיובית. For that, it's enough the fact that it's not not a hanacha. The re'iya from Tosafos is here, on דף ז׳ עמוד ב׳, where Tosafos is מחלק between the mechitzos of a Sukkah and the mechitzos of Shabbos. And the way it comes out from Tosafos here, and Tosafos in Sukkah, that by Sukkah, you need mechitzos. To have a Sukkah, you need מחיצות, באופן חיובי. And by Shabbos, in order to make mechitzos for the reshus, you don't need it. It's only, here it doesn't say, in Sukkah Tosafos תוספות says, למנוע רגל הרבים, that they shouldn't be people able to walk, not that you need mechitzos. So it comes out like this: that the fact to make it into רשות היחיד, you don't need באופן חיובי, it should have a hanacha, it should have to become a mechitza, as long as it's not not a mechitza. To make the חיוב הנחה, according to Tosafos, we said, you must have a hanacha. Not according to Rashi. According to Rashi, we say that's also something that you don't really need, it's just to take away the fact that it's with a hand. So that's what Tosafos says.

What comes first, again, in הגיון, in abstract thinking: the fact that it's not not a mechitza, or the fact that it becomes a mechitza? There's two, three things, three stages: There's no mechitza, and then there's a stage where there is not no mechitza, and then there is a stage where there is a mechitza. Right? What comes first? בפועל, it comes together. When it becomes a מחיצה, two things happen at the same time: Now that there is a מחיצה, it's not not a מחיצה, and it is a מחיצה. But in הגיון, the positive part is a step further. In הגיון, first comes it's not not a מחיצה, then it's a מחיצה. And that's why, and that makes, then the Tosafot makes sense. We're talking about two things: You're throwing this, and it became the רשות היחיד. How did it become a רשות היחיד? Through landing. For that, you don't have to have the fact that it actually landed, it should not be considered not landing, and that's enough. And then, to be חייב, you have to have it landing. That comes later. So according to Tosafot, it became a רשות היחיד, then you did the הנחה. It became a רשות היחיד through landing, but not through the real landing, through the שלילה דיקא. וממילא, what comes out, that it's רשות היחיד, through רשות הרבים, to a רשות היחיד, because your הנחה of חיוב came after it became רשות היחיד. But that all goes לשיטתם of Tosafot, that the הנחה is a חיובידיקע הנחה. If you'd learn like the Tosafot Yeshanim or Rashi, that even the הנחה is not a חיובידיקע הנחה, then what's the חילוק between the הנחה to make it a רשות, and the הנחה for the איסור הוצאה? They're both the same. So why would we consider this that the הנחה of the איסור came after it became a רשות through the הנחה? So Rashi can't learn like that. But Tosafot goes לשיטתם. Tosafot does learn like that. But it all fits to how you learn the פשט in הנחה, whether it's הנחה חיובית, or a הנחה שלילית that you take away the chesaron if you don't have it. You want today's shiur? Yeah, I wanted all, but I'll take what I can get. Can't believe I, can't believe that I started this and went for one to three and